Do Analysts Follow Managers Who Switch Companies? An Analysis of Relationships in the Capital Markets

Abstract

We examine the importance of professional relationships developed between analysts and managers by investigating analyst coverage decisions in the context of CEO and CFO moves between publicly listed firms. We find that top executive moves from an origin firm to a destination firm trigger analysts following the origin firm to initiate coverage of the destination firm in 10% of our sample, which is significantly higher than in a matched sample. Analyst-manager "co-migration" is significantly stronger when both firms are within the same industry. Analysts who move with managers to the destination firm exhibit more intense and accurate coverage of the origin firm than they do in other firms and compared to other analysts covering the origin firm. The advantage no longer holds after the executive's departure, and most of the analysts' advantage does not carry over to the destination firm. However, the analysts do increase the overall market capitalization of firms in their coverage portfolio. Our results hold after Regulation Fair Disclosure, suggesting that these relationships are not based on selective disclosure. Overall, the evidence shows both the importance and limitations of professional relations in capital markets.

More from the Author

This case centers around Qualcomm shareholders' 2012 Say-on-Pay vote and the dispute between the Institutional Shareholder Services and management regarding the appropriateness of the CEO's compensation plan. Was ISS right that Qualcomm CEO's pay was inflated and justified by benchmarking to aspirational peers? Or was management correct that its CEO's pay is warranted by Qualcomm's recent firm performance?

In autumn 2011, Netflix was working to right the ship after publicly stumbling through a price hike and strategic shift and then retreat. The company was changing its business model to focus on streaming video service rather than the DVDs by mail that had brought the company success and praise. One important wrinkle in this business model shift came in the accounting of streaming content. The case describes the rule, FAS 63, that Netflix used to account for streaming content and the implications for the future of the company that could be attributed to this accounting shift.

In autumn 2011, Netflix was working to right the ship after publicly stumbling through a price hike and strategic shift and then retreat. The company was changing its business model to focus on streaming video service rather than the DVDs by mail that had brought the company success and praise. One important wrinkle in this business model shift came in the accounting of streaming content. The case describes the rule, FAS 63, that Netflix used to account for streaming content and the implications for the future of the company that could be attributed to this accounting shift.